Adrian Bunk wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:51:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>> If it is going to be unconditionally offered, we could get rid of
>>>> __BYTEORDER_HAS_U64__ as a next step.  Unless there is something I've
>>>> missed.
>>> Why do we need the byteorder headers in userspace at all?
>>>
>> Because Linux-specific software has depended on them for over 15 years  
>> (they are a much better API than anything POSIX provides.)  We can't  
>> just yank them, and so it's better if they actually work.
>>
>> Yes, you can argue it should be glibc's job to provide them, but well,  
>> why duplicate work when we already have a nicely working set.
> 
> The worst thing is how many CONFIG_'s they currently leak to userspace.
> 
> And e.g. the versions in the x86 header are therefore not the fastest 
> ones (unless the userspace software #define's CONFIG_X86_BSWAP)...
> 

This is a valid point.  This should be __i486__ for userspace, which is 
gcc's way to tell you if you're compiling with -march=i486.

	-hpa
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/